Darian Meacham2015-03-03T15:41:33-05:00Darian Meachamhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=darian-meachamCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Darian MeachamGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Case Against Black Petetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.43973712013-12-06T07:05:59-05:002014-02-05T05:59:01-05:00Darian Meachamhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/darian-meacham/Devil (although in fairness the latter version is now relegated to the history books and not part of the modern practice). The many Piets each serve some function in facilitating Sinterklaas's journey by boat from Spain (where he apparently summers - Saint Nicholas was a Greek bishop of Myra in present-day Turkey) and task of distributing gifts. These days - as sea travel is largely automated - the role of the Piets tends to be limited to distributing candy and clowning around. Piet also had a more sinister role in traditional folklore. One of his tasks was to beat the naughty children with birch and even on occasion take them back to Spain in a burlap sack. Basically Piet does the Sint's dirty work. This was not one of Piet's original roles - it's also not emphasized in contemporary practice - but came about due to a metamorphosis in Sinterklaas's own character from solitary grump to the jollier figure of today; a change expressly brought about at the wishes of the ecclesiastical authorities unhappy about a Saint being portrayed as kind of bogeyman.

Nearly every Anglophone living in the Low Countries can tell you of the time they first encountered Piet. These stories usually involve a dropped jaw and a failed attempt to explain to the locals just what might be offensive about a guy in blackface and huge red lips clowning around in a servant's outfit. A recent New York Times article related the surprise of some African American tourists in Amsterdam who happened upon a group of parading Piets eager to have their photo taken with authentic blacks! It's important to point out that Piet is loved by a great many if not all Dutch people and Dutch speaking Belgians (the Flemish). He is seen as an essential part of the feast of Saint Nicholas, which is appreciated as an ever so slightly less commercial Christmas-like celebration where children get a few gifts and lots of sweets. The first response anyone objecting (for example) to the presence of a blackface Piet in a state funded educational institution will be something along the lines of "but we love Piet". A second response will likely be something along the lines of "this isn't the racist kind of blackface", followed by "you Americans are too sensitive about race" and "this is our tradition". Americans are sensitive about race - or should be - and there are good reasons for this. We have a horrible history of slavery and institutionalized discrimination and dehumanization that rears its ugly head every time a white performer "blacks up" (which still happens far too regularly). The character of Black Piet has also met with some complaints local to the Low Countries. Since the arrival of more significant numbers of immigrants from the former Dutch colonies around the middle of the last century, the complaint that Piet is racist and offensive has surfaced and been the subject of some debate in the Netherlands, and similar debates have started this year in Flanders. Parades are even on occasion disrupted by protesters. In some Dutch celebrations there have been - unpopular - attempts to replace Zwarte Piet with servants of a less controversial hue (blue, green, rainbow). These have for the most part been dismissed as party pooping. On occasion a concession of sorts is proffered, in Amsterdam this year the mayor suggested that the Afro wigs and red lips could be dropped. But the prevailing attitude is pretty well summed up by the comments of the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte who said "Zwarte Piet is black, there's not much we can do about that". The official position (if you can call it that) of the Dutch government is that it's a children's celebration, but can be interpreted in different ways.

I'd like to make the case that Zwarte Piet is not quite as benign as most of his "supporters" think. Nor do I think that it is unjustified meddling on the part of foreigners who don't understand the culture to ask that the practice be at least curtailed. This may all seem terribly obvious to an audience in the USA or UK, but it's not to the Dutch or Flemish, and I think I owe it to my neighbours, friends and family who think there's nothing amiss about Zwarte Piet to try to explain as clearly as I can why I don't think it's just a bit of fun. (The Dutch writer Arnon Grunberg does a good job of explaining the persistence of Zwarte Piet in the New York Times).

First Piet himself. As beloved as the character is, I think that the idea of Sinterklaas having a troupe of exclusively black servants is at the very least problematic. I understand full well that it's not "real", but I also don't think it's the best image to be giving young children who will come of age in a society that is struggling with all sorts of issues involving race and what it means to have an inclusive society. The image of the Sint and his Piets presents a very unambiguous image of a binary split in race relations. More controversially, I think that many in the older generations who defend the practice may unconsciously be quite comfortable with this split. In fact it is traditionally what they have known, a remnant of the world they wish to hold onto, for what are largely unrelated reasons, and which protests like mine threaten. I think that this vision of a racialised reality is so ingrained that people can't be brought to see it, one of the reasons that this kind of objection to Zwarte Piet most often falls on deaf ears. But implicit racism can be there even when you don't see it and does not I think even always involve negative intensions.

Setting aside this more speculative assertion, in countries where racial discrimination in housing and employment is rife and well documented, the sight of the Sint and his Piets is perhaps not constructive or conducive to building more harmonious communities. I get that there is something deeply upsetting about the crude commercialization of Christmas being followed up by the moralizing of American liberals who seek to alter what's left of traditional festive practice. But in this instance I think we moralists have a point

My second objection has to do with the act of blackface itself and the contemporary image of Zwarte Piet with the Afro wig and big red lips. It's not just my American sensitivity to blackface and the history of minstrel shows and other ridiculing of black Africans that is at play here. Neither the Netherlands nor Belgium has a clean slate when it comes to historic race relations - both nations have an ugly imperial (not so distant) past. In both places there is a history of "darky" iconography and stereotypical ways of depicting Africans being used to subjugate the inhabitants of colonized nations and this iconography is still very much at work in the typical image of Zwarte Piet. Personal intentions aside, any time a white person "blacks up" they invoke this iconography. They may not be aware of it themselves, but it's happening.

So I offer a proposal, keep Piet but drop the Black. Traditions change. Mark Rutte would have us believe that Piet's blackness is a fact about the world, like the Netherlands being closer to the North Pole than Spain. It's not, it's a cultural artifact introduced into the tradition relatively recently to address complaints coming from a different source. Changing Piet is not abandoning tradition as many argue, but updating it for a different time and world. In fact it's a way of protecting the tradition. When my daughter asked me last night to sing the Zwarte Piet song I cringed and said no. In the years to come, my partner and I will do what we can to teach her that this tradition as it stands goes against our beliefs and better judgments. If she had just asked for the Piet song, I probably would have simply smiled and obliged.]]>Getting Clever About Smart Drugs: A Few Remarks for Students, Parents and educators.tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.36678622013-07-28T16:34:22-04:002013-09-27T05:12:01-04:00Darian Meachamhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/darian-meacham/Bildung be damned; the government has made it clear: it's a dog-eat-dog, brave new world out there and our kids just aren't cutting the mustard anymore. We need memorisation, skills and vocations, none of this artsy-fartsy, outdated, citizen-forming university education nonsense anymore (unless you're a deserving member of the upper classes). The government is of course also unflinchingly anti-drugs, but we needn't worry ourselves with that, this isn't 'opening the doors of perception' or some other fruity waste of time, these drugs are the fire in the gut, or rather the brain, of homo economicus.

Okay, none of this is really true, but there certainly seems to be a lot of hype surrounding the use of so-called 'smart drugs' for what's termed (in academic parlance) 'cognitive enhancement': pharmaceutical manipulation of the brain to improve cognitive capabilities of otherwise normally functioning individuals.

When I organised a public debate on the topic in January, I was inundated with interest from the media, and the local student newspaper soon demanded that the university where I work come up with a 'smart drug policy', despite lack of evidence that there was a problem or even much use amongst students. Reading some national newspapers you'd be forgiven for thinking think that use of Ritalin and Modafinil was already widespread amongst British students (no evidence of that), and that all of New York is on Adderall (my unscientific informal poll of professionals I know in New York revealed no such prevalence). Notwithstanding the hype, there are still a number of important issues surrounding 'smart drugs' or 'cognitive enhancement' that students, educators and parents should be thinking about.

The first thing is to figure out what we're talking about when we use the term 'smart drugs'. For the moment this means the off-label use of psychostimulants usually prescribed for conditions like Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Ritalin, Adderall) or narcolepsy (Modafinil). An increase in ADHD diagnoses means a larger grey market for psychostimulants prescribed for the condition. This is certainly what has happened in the US. The lack of a clear aetiology for ADHD coupled with the drastic increase in prevalence has many in the psychological and psychiatric professions rightfully concerned, as psychostimulant use becomes more and more common amongst school-age Americans. In the future there will most likely be pharmaceuticals directly aimed at cognitive enhancement, but at the moment the drugs in question are being used off-label.

This is at the source of one of the two main worries: safety and fairness. The first is a legitimate concern, the second not. The psychostimulants that we hear most about Adderall, Ritalin, and Modafinil have all been shown to have potentially dangerous side effects, including dependence, and in some extreme cases even psychosis. This is cause for serious concern. But we have to be realistic and honest about the fact that students are not exactly a risk adverse group, many may be willing to take some chances if there is a real benefit. Moreover, universities have seemingly little issue with selling a more dangerous drug to students, often at highly discounted prices - alcohol. Saying the drugs are dangerous is not likely to be a huge deterrent to their use.

With good intentions, some universities have indicated that they would consider 'smart drug' use a form of cheating. Legally, this stacks up. The use of these pharmaceuticals without a prescription is illegal. Morally however, it's questionable whether there is any difference in taking a smart drug to gain an advantage and paying for extra tutoring, or seeking guidance from a nutritionist on a brain-friendly diet, both of which would probably be encouraged. In fact, the latter two, by being more expensive and probably making a bigger difference in performance than the pychostimulants in question are probably more unfair in a strict sense. So I think we can set the fairness issue aside.

But do they work? Experiments in laboratory conditions have shown negligible change in the cognitive performance of normally performing individuals. So why are students taking them? Some point to a placebo effect. There is probably some truth to this, but anecdotal evidence also points to some real world effects that are hard to measure in laboratory conditions, namely a boost in the feeling of motivation and the capacity to focus for longer periods. The ability to stay awake and lucid for longer than normal is also obviously a plus for many sleepy students. So rather than enhancing cognitive capacities themselves, what some people report is an ability to use their existing capacities better and longer.

It's this idea of motivation or focus 'in a can' that concerns me. Universities and schools in general are special parts of our societies. They are not just places where employment skills are learned or information memorised for future repetition. They are places where characters are formed, where the value of being able to muster motivation and focus in adverse conditions is learned. Substituting a pharmaceutical for the formation of these traits seems undesirable, regardless of the efficacy of the outcome.

Educational institutions are also places where students fall in love, not just with one another, but with ideas. As we all know, love involves daydreaming, letting the mind wander aimlessly, and chasing plenty of futile ends. The so-called 'smart drugs' available at the moment do not lend themselves favourably to these kinds of 'romantic' activities, but rather to narrowly focused cramming and memorisation, which has its place, but is a mere shadow of all that we call learning.

Finally, there the issue of a gradual medicalisation and 'technisation' of life, the idea that there is a technical or medical solution to challenges in all aspects of our lives. This last concern is linked (I think) to some of the controversy around the rise in ADHD diagnoses. These concerns make me a conservative in many regards. I think there is something worth holding on to in the way that we value effort and will power, but also daydreaming, creativity, and often futility in learning and education. We should think very carefully before potentially making changes to these aspects of institutionalised learning.

Bioethicist Ruud ter Meulen counsels not making too much fuss about drugs used by relatively few with little or no gain, but poorly defined risks. Prohibiting something often makes it more attractive. I agree, I'm also not sure what grounds could be used to prohibit the use of a new drug developed and approved specifically for 'cognitive enhancement'.

What can be done is for university policy to explicitly place emphasis on the character forming and 'romantic' aspects of education. And why not go as far as to tell students directly that any drug that might negatively impact these parts of the learning experience is not very smart at all.]]>Does Privatisation Threaten Democracy?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23784202012-12-28T19:47:18-05:002013-02-27T05:12:02-05:00Darian Meachamhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/darian-meacham/Bpost) has lost two items of mine. One was a registered letter containing important documents, the other was a Christmas gift for my daughter. Let's just say, I am not exactly a believer in Bpost's new snappy motto: 'ready for tomorrow'. In fairness, their customer service (both by phone and twitter) have been responsive. What they have not done is offer any apologies or regrets, nor have they been able to find any of my stuff! For the record, they have denied that Amazon ever shipped the gift for my daughter and just sort of shrugged about the lost registered letter.

This got me thinking about the perils of moving important public services into the domain of the private sector (the Belgian government does still control 50% + 1 share of the public limited liability company Bpost). With the privatisation of the postal service there are no longer any (fully) publicly controlled means of communication between individuals, groups and public institutions. I think it is safe to say that nearly all of our communication, not done face to face, is mediated by private corporations. In a democratic society this seems highly problematic for a very simple reason. The very essence of democratic conduct is public communication in and on the interests of the common good. When this is to a very large extent mediated if not fully controlled by private companies whose primary directive is to generate profit for shareholders and thus in potential conflict with the common good, there is good reason to believe that these private interests might not always be the neutral and transparent mechanisms of communication that we have come to see them as. In short, there is a risk that the capacity for public communication, one of the foundational aspects of a democratic society, is being eroded by privatisation. The telecoms are the most obvious example of this - to control an internet connection is more or less these days to control the flow of information and communication between citizens and institutional bodies. But the accelerating privatisation of European postal services is also a relevant example. If I wish to contact even my local government (other than by spending a day waiting around at city hall) I must pass through a private telecoms company or postal service.

The basic questions surrounding the privatisation of the postal service are the same as those surrounding the privatisation of any essential public service. Can a private enterprise whose primary goal is to draw profit be expected to offer the same level of service as a public service whose only goal is to provide that service even if it is a detriment to their bottom line? In certain cases - privatisation of telecoms being an example - a liberalised market with sufficient competition may drive innovation leading to improvements in service and drop in price. But even in such cases major infrastructure investment is most often done by governments. In other sectors - rail in the UK, postal service in Belgium - a near monopoly is maintained by a sole provider with no discernable benefit to the service user. When it comes to provision of basics like energy and water, it is hard to see any rational for privatisation beyond an ideological attachement to the market. These are concrete and tangible day-to-day issues and they should certainly give us some pause.

But beyond the frustration of wondering where the heck my mail has gone, or if I have set the privacy settings correctly for my gmail or facebook account, or who the EC has demanded my national government sell the water supply to, it is the political question that worries me most. (Actually the water question worries me quite bit also!) What is the risk of privatising the mechanisms of communication in a diminished public sphere, where contact between citizens is ever more reliant on internet and phone connections. Do we trust companies whose sole function is to generate a profit to be in effect the mediators and even arbitrators of the fundamentals of democratic society?]]>A Progressive Wish List for the EU Budget (Part 1)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22313982012-12-03T10:01:35-05:002013-02-02T05:12:01-05:00Darian Meachamhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/darian-meacham/for the rest of Europe, if not Germany.

Many in the UK of course agree, even Ed Milliband (rather cynically I think) has demanded that Cameron play a firm hand in trying to reform the EU and get the best deal for Britain.

It's a good thing that European Social Democrats are no longer blanket apologists for an EU that is in large part run by neo-liberals and works against the Social Democratic goals (think Merkel's fiscal pact) that I think are at the heart of the European Dream (a sustainable high quality of life for all Europeans). But we should also remember that our goals are simply not attainable without the heft of a strong Europe backing them up.

For example, if great organizations like UK Uncut really want to get multinationals to pay a fair amount of tax, they'll have to be able to pursue them across borders - why is Ikea a registered charity in the Netherlands? And for that they'll need democratic institutions that have transnational authority and reach.

The EU has the potential to be a real power for fairness and social justice. We'll have to fight to make it that way, but the possibility is there. And being critical doesn't mean blocking the budget, or short-changing areas and projects that are genuinely important to the future of the continent. But it does mean having a very serious look at where the money goes and where we'd like to see it go.

In that spirit, I'll be writing a social democratic wish list for the EU budget negotiations recommencing in January. I'll try to look at all of the big chunks of the budget: Cohesion, Agriculture, Competitiveness, Foreign affairs and Development, and Administration. In doing so I'll also be trying to set out some idea of what I think a Social Democratic Europe might look like. I have no particular expertise to do this, just a desire to support the European project. I welcome your input.

Let's start with the biggest populist cheer getter (with the Common Agricultural Policy running a close second): Administration

Those Brussels fat cats want to keep raising their already bloated salaries while demanding that the rest of us take cuts across the board, it stinks!

Well, yes and no. Not all EU salaries are stratospheric, and cuts are being made. Besides, whine Barroso (European Commission President) and van Rompuy (European Council President), administration is just 6% of the budget, a measly €62.6 billion! The European Commission would also have us know that most tales about waste, fraud and bloated salaries are myths. Much of that may be true, but appearances do matter, especially for an EU undergoing a potentially fatal legitimacy crisis! If the European Commission is going to suggest slashing civil service pay and social services in the member states, EU institutions will have to bite the bullet and take some of their own medicine - especially at the high end of the pay scale, where political decisions are made and salaries are very big.

A great place to start would be the €300,000 (plus living expenses) that Van Rompuy and Barroso each earn. Barroso also gets a €50,000/year entertainment budget. I'm sorry if he has to pay people to hang out with him, but that's not the taxpayers' problem!

Their positions are political not technical, and frankly they're both rubbish at their jobs. Van Rompuy (aka the 'Grey Mouse', no really) is supposed to be the face of the EU on the world stage and a great backroom negotiator. He's neither. Barroso is confident that austerity is starting to work in Greece. So confident that the Commission doesn't think its necessary for unemployed Greeks to have health insurance. I have about zero confidence in him.

Why are they there? Because the member states who really run the show (more on that later) know that they can count of these neo-liberal lap dogs to do their bidding. Yes, surprise surprise it's the member states that make Europe what it is and are responsible for the vast vast majority of waste and pork, and then turn around and blame the EU institutions when it suits them domestically.

I say cut both their salaries to a symbolic €1 plus living expenses! If they love Europe as much as they say they do, they'll be proud to do it. Besides, I doubt they've touched much of their pay these past years, what with taxpayers wining, dining, housing and probably clothing them (in addition to paying their salaries).

A much bigger savings of around €200 million/year could be had by stopping the monthly circus that is the European Parliament's jaunt to Strasbourg for the general assembly. This French ego trip is a scandal. It serves no purpose other than to assuage French insecurities about being at the heart of Europe. Hollande should do the right thing and call time on this farce. Sadly he won't. Public pressure is needed (sign the petition).

These are not huge things fiscally speaking, but their symbolic value is greater than their numerical, they show that 'Brussels' is not a bubble in the clouds, but has some understanding of the financial pressures many Europeans are under. There are a lot of other things that could be done to give the impression that EU leaders, technocrats and MEPs understand what's happening on the ground. These wouldn't lessen the strength of the Union, they are a step toward restoring its legitimacy!]]>Some People (May) Choose to be Gay, Get Over Ittag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21701862012-11-21T08:20:14-05:002013-01-21T05:12:01-05:00Darian Meachamhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/darian-meacham/Maine, Washington, and Minnesota recently felled a few more trees in the great forest of ignorance that is the case against giving gays and lesbians equal civil rights - namely the right to marry. The people of Minnesota more trimmed than felled, voting down a resolution defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, but it's a good start. Voters in Washington State and Maine elected to allow gay marriage. Voters in Maryland did the same, but since there are less trees there my metaphor doesn't work, sorry Maryland.

And so went another of the fallacious arguments against civil rights down the river to be pulped (sorry, no more logging metaphors). Following the demise of the social harm argument, with the shocking discovery that gays and lesbians are, for the most part, really not that dangerous, the homophobes had to craft a more devious strategy. This time they opted for a version of an old racist classic, "some of my best friends are black/gay/left-handed, but...". What the 'but' meant was that mainstream America (or fill in name of country) just wasn't quite ready for real equality, oh, and also it would change the nature of marriage irrevocably and ruin everyone's life - the social harm argument never really went away! Gay marriage may be well and good for the pinkos in Massachusetts and New York, and for the weirdos in Quebec and... Belgium (ok no one ever mentions Belgium, but I had to plug it), but not for good, wholesome, real Americans, who actually care more about their families and communities than their soy macchiatos. Well, you don't get much more hearty Americana than Maine, Minnesota, and Washington (sorry Maryland). Turns out that these folks may have realized that caring for your family and community means ensuring that everyone in your family and community has the same rights. Glee probably helped too.

But the stupid tree is a hearty species, and like stinkweed it's tough to eradicate. Though they're running out of options the homophobes can still try to fall back to the 'it's not natural, it's a lifestyle choice' argument, and from there argue that while there are things you have no control over, like being black or a woman, and so should be protected by law from being discriminated against for, being gay is your own choice, hence it's not automatically evident that it would be in the same category vis-à-vis civil rights. Let's chainsaw this erroneous and harmful logic! The gay rights movement has responded by insisting that it's not a choice, gays and lesbians, are 'born this way'. I commend the work being done by these campaigners, but I'm also slightly wary. I worry that there is a bit of homophobic residue in the idea that one would have to be born that way to be gay, i.e. if one could choose to be not gay one would. This seems to leave open the idea that there might be something bad about non-hetero sexualities, but people have no control over them and so should not be persecuted for them.

What if we let go of the 'born this way' argument? There is no hard scientific evidence to support it, and people are often mistaken in their self-assessment of what is and is not in their control, but that's not the point. From the perspective of a liberal democratic society, what difference does it make if a form of behaviour (let's think of sexuality as a form of behaviour) is inborn or a choice? I think none. If a form of behaviour does not harm others, then there is no reason that an individual should be penalized by having rights revoked should they choose to engage in it. So by this account, being gay or straight or bi or whatever may be a 'lifestyle choice' of some sort. If that choice makes you happy and doesn't cause harm shouldn't a liberal society support it?

Many people respond by saying that being gay, especially when a teenager in a homophobic environment, made them very unhappy. How on earth could you say that this is a choice! First, I doubt it was the being gay itself, but rather the abusive and discriminatory behaviour of others that made them unhappy. The few moments they got to be gay without fear or shame horning in probably did make them happy. Second, choice is probably not the best way to think about these issues. I don't choose to be a straight man in the way that I chose between toast and cereal this morning. The relation between some kind of bodily orientation and my conscious and unconscious exercise of freedom is without doubt a complex one. The point is that if I did wake up this morning and choose to be gay or straight it should make no difference in relation to what rights I have. I should not be discriminated against for a choice that hurts no one and makes me happy. That's a good choice!

Cynthia Nixon has made similar claims (and been attacked for them), the queer by choice movement has long argued for this kind of position, but things are truer when famous people say them! Let's sweep the carpet out from under the homophobes by giving them some ground and letting them flounder all over it. Once we stop worrying about whether its inborn or not, we can see that it makes little difference where rights are concerned and that's an argument we should have and win. Sexual orientation is, I think, a complex thing and not reducible to the facile and outdated categories of nature or nurture. Likewise, rights can be complex. But the case here is simple, whether that way by chance or choice, gays and lesbians deserve the right to marry. Granting that right in the UK is a good choice, let's make it now.]]>White Guys Want Stuff Too!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20920282012-11-08T08:17:05-05:002013-01-08T05:12:01-05:00Darian Meachamhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/darian-meacham/
That pillar was Bill O'Reilly: "It's not a traditional America anymore, and there are fifty percent of the voting public [sic] who want stuff, they want things." In case we were wondering precisely who this stuff wanting fifty percent might be, Bill-O told us: latinos, blacks and women. He probably would have wanted to also include Gays and Lesbians, insofar as equal rights could be considered 'stuff' that Bill thinks they don't deserve. The stuff-wanters voted for Obama because they think he'll give it to them. Now lest you think that Bill-O has turned pinko on us and is bemoaning rampant materialism amongst women, blacks, latinos and gays in contrast to the well-known asceticism of the white establishment, let's be clear on what the problem actually is. It's not that wanting stuff is bad; it's what they want and who they want it from, i.e. the government. Never mind that many members of these decadent classes are perfectly happy to pay for this stuff through taxation, which is more than we can say for quite few of Bill's white establishment (Mitt included); wanting stuff from the government is in itself bad and apparently the exclusive domain of Women, Blacks, Latinos, and Gays.

As a straight white guy, I'm just gonna come right out and say it - I want stuff too! I am not sure that I'm fully part of the American white establishment since I not only want stuff but also live in Europe. But I am a middle-class, American, straight, white guy, married to a straight white woman, with a little white kid, so I think I qualify as fairly 'establishment'. By the way, my wife wants stuff too, but she's a woman so that's par for the course apparently. Here's the kind of stuff we want: clean safe streets, a good education system for ourselves, our little white kid and her little friends of all hues, affordable health care for everyone, affordable and decent housing, a clean environment in which we can enjoy our leisure time, and the right to get a little drunk and dance badly at our gay friends' weddings. Here's the kicker, we want the government to provide these things! We're fully willing to pay for them with progressive income taxation (less willing to pay via regressive VAT hikes), but I don't think anyone but the government can properly provide this kind of stuff.

In some cases, we're happy to get our stuff from the private sector, but we want the nanny state to regulate it. I feel entitled! Why? Because 'we built it' - to quote the Republican chant. But feeling entitled is just one side of the stuff coin; the other is that these entitlements are the foundations of a real establishment, i.e. a strong nation.

Let me explain what I mean. Establishing things, like a decent society, requires the kind of stuff listed above. Real members of the establishment, and by this I mean the kind of people (not all white men, Bill) who build things like lasting sustainable industries, schools and universities, cultures...nations know this. If your contribution consists of a new type of Credit Default Swap, moving a factory moved to Asia and filling the Cayman accounts of your investors, then I don't think you are part of the 'establishment', you're part of the 'destablishment'. Really establishing things requires good schools and brilliant, committed teachers willing to teach in them, often instead of pursuing more lucrative careers. It requires healthy, nourished children and adults who can function at their full capacity. It requires doctors, nurses and social workers who can ensure this is the case. It also requires that people be treated equally under the law regardless of who they love. The list goes on. Real members of the establishment know this and they are willing to pay for it, that's why people like Mr. establishment himself, Warren Buffet, think taxes on the rich should go up. That's why teachers, doctors, nurses, and carers often go above and beyond what's strictly required of them to provide the things we need to build a nation. Bill's wrong, this stuff is part of the established American tradition. It's what made the country what it is. It's also what made Britain the fair, decent and strong nation that it is in so many ways.

Here's what I am worried about. Bill-O and his Fox News 'Bills*!t' make for good political fodder in Britain. But the vocabulary of entitlement and the undeserving stuff-wanters often finds its way into our political discourse in a more nuanced form, especially when there are vested interests on the part of those in power to de-establish the things that build a strong and equal society. We should be wary of how ultra-liberal (in the sense of laissez-faire) ideas can de-establish some of our most important traditions. This stuff matters.]]>What We Can Still Learn From Lance Armstrongtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20633312012-11-02T19:00:00-04:002014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00Darian Meachamhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/darian-meacham/
True, the French never trusted him, but that just made us Yanks love him more. So great was our love for Lance that even when he gave up the fight against doping allegations, top American philosophers defended him with more vigour than before, arguing that his doping made him an even bigger hero, this time for the whole species! Lance had embraced his 'cyborg nature' and so should we! Here's what UC Berkley philosopher Alva Noë had to say: "He is a trailblazer. One of the greats. He didn't win races on his own. No, like each of us in our social embeddings, he created an organization, one drawing on other people, and the creative and effective use of technology, the mastery of biochemistry, to go places and do things that most of us never will, and that no one ever had, before him."

Then the levee broke. We found out what we had kind of suspected all along. Lance was really not a nice guy, I mean really not a nice guy. He bullied, threatened and coerced his teammates, rivals, and support staff into either becoming 'friends of Edgar' (Edgar Allen Poe, the surprisingly cultured codename for the performance enhancing drug EPO) or keeping very quiet about his literary proclivities.

So does Lance still have something to teach us about ethics and doping? I think so. I pretty much agree with Noë when he says that humans are technological creatures through and through. In almost every aspect of our lives technology of some sort makes us what we are, think of the written word, perhaps the greatest invention of all time. There is no getting around our 'cyborg nature' and certainly no getting back to a nature where we all run around naked in the woods hugging each other without checking our twitter feeds every ten seconds. Those days never existed. Before EPO, iPhones and tumblr, there was papyrus, caffeine and the domestication of cattle. But just because we're totally technologized doesn't mean that the social, political and economic context in which technology is used doesn't matter. At the end of the day, the final straw for Lance was that he coerced others into doping or covering it up. More so than the doping itself, it was the coercion that really makes him ethically suspect.

Now let's look at another kind of technological enhancement and see if the same kind of thing is at work. There's been a lot in the media recently about students taking 'smart drugs' to do better at school, go to a top university or college... basically succeed!

Many bioethicists shrug and say, good on'em, there's little difference between some extra tutoring, four cans of Redbull and popping a few of your narcoleptic cousin's Modafinil. We should use every aspect of science that we can to progress as a society and get smarter. But like EPO or synthetic testosterone, taking smart drugs may have unintended side effects, and we don't really know what they'll do to otherwise normal brains in the long run.

On a social level there is the risk that socio-economic conditions will lead many to 'enhance' their cognition in the same ways, leading to a kind of de-diversification of mental life on a broader scale. Some say that these are the risks of progress and everyone is free enhance themselves or not. But just like many young cyclists felt they had no choice, regardless of the health risks, many students today (or in the future) might feel the same.

In the peloton, Lance was the explicit enforcer of an 'enhancement culture', this is what makes him ethically problematic. Outside the bubble of elite sports, the coercion and pressure to enhance in various ways may be less direct, but just as real. And it's the coercive element, being pressured into unnecessary and undesirable risks, that makes doping morally problematic in a general sense, on and off the bike. It seems it's not all about the bike after all.]]>